1979 Legislative Session: 1st

Session, 32nd

Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 12, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 699 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Cheekye-Dunsmuir project. Mr. Lockstead ––

Public hearings by B.C. Hydro. Mr.

Lockstead –– 700

Status of Indian women. Ms. Brown –– 700

Skin diving and Workers' Compensation

Board. Mr. Howard

–– 701

Medical Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 15).

Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Cocke –– 701

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 701

Ms. Brown –– 702

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 702

section 10.

Ms. Brown –– 702

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 702

section 19.

Mr. Cocke –– 702

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 702

Ms. Brown –– 702

Mr. Cocke –– 702

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 703

section 23.

Mr. Stupich –– 703

Mr. Cocke –– 703

Report and third reading –– 703

New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1979

(Bill 21).

Committee stage.

section 9.

Mr. Cocke –– 703

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 704

section 12.

Mr. Cocke –– 705

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 705

Report and third reading –– 705

Land Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 16). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 705

Mr. Hanson –– 706

Mr. Passarell –– 707

Mr. Nicolson –– 707

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 707

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act

(Bill 17).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 709

Mr. Gablemann –– 710

Mr. Cocke –– 710

Mr. Mussallem –– 711

Mr. King –– 712

Mr. Lauk –– 712

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 713

Division on second reading –– 714

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1979

(Bill 18).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Lauk –– 714

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 715

section 12.

Mr. Lauk –– 718

section 13.

Mrs. Dailly –– 718

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 718

Mr. Lauk –– 719

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 719

section 17.

Mrs. Dailly –– 719

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 719

section 18.

Mr. Lauk –– 719

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 719

section 19.

Mr. Lauk –– 720

section 20.

Mrs. Dailly –– 720

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 720

section 22 amendment.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 720

Mr. Lauk –– 720

Report –– 721

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests

estimates.

On vote 117.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 721

Mr. King –– 722

Appendix –– 725

THURSDAY, JULY 12, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct

honour today to

introduce to the House two people who grace the floor of the

Legislature this afternoon: Robert and Ann Strachan. Robert Strachan

served this province in public life for many, many years. He was a

regional board director and played a prominent role in other municipal

affairs for many years before entering the Legislature of British

Columbia, in which he sat for some 23 years. He served as Leader of Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition for a major portion of that time, and

distinguished himself and our party in the process. He concluded his

public service in this institution as a minister of the Crown from 1972

until 1975, and thereafter served as agent-general in London in B.C.

House. I ask the House to extend a very warm welcome to Ann and Bob

Strachan.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

the government I

certainly want to endorse the remarks of the House Leader of the

official opposition and welcome Ann and Bob Strachan to the floor of

this House. I'm delighted to see them here. I'm a relatively new kid in

the place, but I recall some very wise counsel which was offered by Mr.

Strachan in my first few days, and I think it was to the effect of,

"Don't let the bleep wear you down," and it was good advice. It's just

wonderful to see them here today and the government certainly welcomes

them both.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would

like you and the

members to be aware that in the galleries today and in the House are

Mr. Jim Kinnaird, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Dave

MacIntyre, the secretary treasurer of the Federation, and other

representative members of the executive of that organization.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to add my

personal word of welcome

to Bob and Ann Strachan. I might say that I offered him this seat

today, but he decided against it.

I have two guests in the gallery today that I would like the

House

to join me in welcoming. One is Mr. Sucha Hayer from Duncan, and the

other is a young lady whom I have known for the last few years. She's a

very good friend of mine, and an employee of the Doman Industries mill

in the Cowichan estuary. She works there as a strapper operator and for

the last three years she has been the plant chairman for the IWA. I

would like the House to join me in welcoming Miss Darlene Mancell.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's

gallery today we

have two distinguished guests from the central Fraser Valley, Mr. and

Mrs. Duff Menzie. Mr. Menzie is a retired bank manager, which makes him

an extra special friend of mine. Would the House please welcome Mr. and

Mrs. Menzie.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have a

number of

introductions. I'I do them all now. We have visiting from New

Westminster Mrs. Ina Watson and her friends and my friends, Mrs.

McCarthy from Scotland and Mrs. Mclean from Surrey.

Also, we have Mr. Jerry Slamon and Patrick O'Hagan who are

visiting

from Ireland. Mr. and Mrs. John Scholefield, residents of Surrey, have

been regular attenders at the council meetings over the years. I ask

the House to welcome all of these people to the Legislature.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the member's gallery

today is one of

British Columbia's better known professional foresters. He is in charge

of forestry for Canadian Cellulose Corp. He is also on the executive of

the Association of British Columbia Professional Foresters. In both of

these capacities, Mr. Speaker, this gentleman makes an ongoing

contribution to the cause of better forest management in B.C. Would you

please welcome Bill Backman.

MR. BRUMMET: We have with us in Victoria

today a group from

the Village of Taylor, at the south end of the North Peace riding. For

those of you not familiar with Taylor it is, of course, the Pittsburg

of the north and the gateway to the land of oil, gas, farming, milk,

honey, lumbering and Hydro, among other things. Anyway, they are: the

mayor, Ron Murphy; Alderman Vivian Pylatiuk; the village clerk Marvin

Stein; and Pren Kashykp, who is the consulting engineer. I'd like the

House to make them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: I have two guests to

introduce to the House

today. The first is one of Prince George's notable handball players and

the administrator of our regional hospital, Mr. Bert Boyd. My second

guest is the past president, and, I might add, first president, of the

Prince George–Yellowhead Rotary Club, Mr. Grant Hughes. I would ask the

House to welcome these people.

Oral Questions

CHEEKYE-DUNSMUIR PROJECT

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the

Minister of

Environment. On May 1 of this year the minister made the following

statement, in part, to the B.C. Wildlife Federation: "What we have to

have is a procedure where everybody can have a say as to whether or not

there should be a dam, whether or not we need the power, whether we

should have some other kinds of power. These are the kinds of things

that the public should have input in." Yet in a letter to the Sunshine

Coast Regional District, dated June 21 of this year, regarding the

Cheekye-Dunsmuir power line the minister said: "I have concluded that a

public hearing is not warranted."

My question is: can the minister explain why he is now

repudiating

that policy he announced to the B.C. Wildlife Federation, and is he

willing to deny the public any say in the protection of the environment

in this instance?

HON. MR. MAIR: I have never felt it was a

very rewarding

exercise to have a public hearing into something that had already been

decided and was part of government policy. I didn't feel it would be in

order at that stage of the game — the decisions having been made — to

grant that request; that was the reason.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yesterday during the debates

on the estimates,

the minister pleaded ignorance to my

[ Page 700 ]

questions on the environmental studies

in regard to

this project. Based on his correspondence to the regional district of

June 21 it appears the minister had full knowledge of these studies.

Will the minister now admit that these studies did take place and that

he ignored the recommendations of these studies?

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer to both

questions, if I understood

them correctly, is no.

PUBLIC HEARINGS BY B.C. HYDRO

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a new question for

the Minister of

Energy. I wonder if the minister can explain why he has now announced

that Hydro will break its word that it would use a less devastating

route, instead of slashing through eight parks, or park reserves, and

11 watersheds in the Sakinaw Lake crossing of this transmission line.

Is this an example of the promised new policy of the government

controlling B.C. Hydro?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The investigations and

discussions in regard

to the various alternate routes were considered for the crossing of the

Sechelt peninsula, and the determination as to the final site, of

course, did deal with the environmental impact. Mr. Member, you know as

well as I do that you run into that situation that nobody really wants

it in their backyard or where they can see it on the Sechelt peninsula.

At the same time, your colleagues and my colleagues on Vancouver Island

recognize that people over here are asking: "When is the transmission

line going to be built?" It's one of those problems we face, Mr.

Member, where government has to make a decision, and that decision is a

hard one. I think Hydro has taken a position to lessen as much as

possible the environmental impact and the impact on the aesthetics of

the area.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Can the minister explain why

he has now

announced that Hydro will break the promise it gave to a mass meeting

of the residents in that area earlier this year that it would conduct

public hearings to ensure that no tragic and irreparable errors were

made by an insensitive and powerful bureaucracy?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't know what his

question is, Mr.

Speaker. Do you want to repeat it?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would like an answer from

the minister on

this question. I would like to know why he has changed his mind and not

allowed public hearings into this very controversial project.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I guess if I can respond

with a question,

Mr. Speaker, you're saying that I have changed my mind in regard to

public hearings. Did I make that statement?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister is responsible

to this

Legislature for the activities of B.C. Hydro. If he is not responsible

to this Legislature, then who is? I expect an answer from that minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we

proceed, I'd like to

warn that question period is not the time for a debate or an exchange

of ideas between sides. I think that we should have questions and

answers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member is aware that a

news release of

Hydro has come out, and the board of directors of B.C. Hydro, of which

I am one, has made a decision as to the location of the crossing that

is most suitable and has the least environmental impact. That's the

final decision. Of course, that is their decision and now it will come

before the Environment and Land Use Committee in regard to the proposal

for the location that they have selected. I was part of that decision.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister should be aware

that the studies

done by the big consultants and the Environment and Land Use Committee

are deathly opposed to the route chosen by the minister and B.C. Hydro.

They are going against the direct wishes of those two bodies; the

minister must know that. This government is the most secretive

government. They make their decisions beforehand without regard for the

people.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a supplementary

question to the Minister

of Environment. Inasmuch as yesterday he pleaded ignorance about these

hearings, and inasmuch as it has now been made public that B.C. Hydro

has chosen this route, will the Minister of Environment assure the

House that he will spearhead a movement to make positive that the

environmental concerns are protected in the route of this line?

HON. MR. MAIR: I will continue to try to do

the duty I swore

I would do. I can't be any more specific than that. I will try to

protect the environment to the best of my ability.

STATUS OF INDIAN WOMEN

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister

of Environment in

his role as the constitutional doyen of the province. As the minister

knows, native Indian women are the only people in Canada who are

proscribed by law as to whom they must marry or else lose their status.

In view of the fact that some of these women are now in Ottawa asking

for the protection of the national Human Rights Act, is the minister,

in his role as the constitutional expert and who speaks on behalf of

the constitution for the people of British Columbia, supporting their

request for protection under the federal Human Rights Act?

HON. MR. MAIR: It seems to me that any

answer I give is going

to be the wrong one. I can't say yes, no, or take it on notice; I'm in

a terrible dilemma. But I must say to the member that I did not know of

this particular situation and that these ladies are in Ottawa. If the

member would be good enough to send me the details of their visit there

and what they seek to achieve, I'll be delighted to look at it from the

point of view of my position not as a constitutional expert but as

chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Confederation and see whether

anything therein falls within my duties, and I'll be glad to advise her

of it.

MS. BROWN: Has the minister in his role as

the chairperson of

the constitution committee of the province taken the dilemma of these

women to the federal govern-

[ Page 701 ]

ment? I want to refer specifically to

a brief which

was sent to the minister and to every member of the Legislature in May

1978, pointing out that they were being discriminated against under the

Indian Act. Has the minister in his role as the chairperson of that

committee taken this concern to Ottawa and asked for amendments, either

of the Indian Act or for their protection under the federal Human

Rights statute?

HON. MR. MAIR: I am the chairman of the

committee on

confederation.

The matter to which the member alludes does not fall within

the

duties that I have as chairman of that committee, nor within the duties

of the committee itself. That is not to say that I don't agree with the

member. I would be delighted to take a look at the problems she puts

forward and to see what I can do. However, it does not fall within my

duties and therefore I don't think that I can answer the question.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I have the member's

word that he is

chairman, but in the meantime, I'I call him chairperson because that I

can verify — the other I can't. [Laughter. ]

HON. MR. MAIR: If that was a challenge, I

accept it.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw the challenge, Mr.

Speaker. I'm a

chicken, no question about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there are

moments in this House

that are truly enjoyable. Now back to the question period.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. native

women presented a

policy paper to all members of the Legislature, including the minister,

in which they outlined their discrimination under the Indian Act. All

I'm asking is whether the minister — if he hasn't done so already —

would take up on one of his constitutional journeys to Ottawa the

dilemma of the only group in our society who are told by law what race

they must marry into or else run the risk of losing their status.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm not quite sure, Mr.

Speaker, whether I

should refer to the member as "my dear" after that last exchange.

In any event, Madam Member, I will be delighted, if you wish,

to let

you have a list of my duties as the chairman of the Cabinet Committee

on Confederation. Then perhaps you will be able to see that if I am to

take your concerns to Ottawa, it will have to be as a private member,

not as chairman of that committee.

SKINDIVING AND THE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to

direct a question to

the Minister of Labour and ask the minister, in view of the deaths in

May of two fishermen who were skindiving for a species of clam called

geoduck and who were required to work in that capacity without the

Worker's Compensation Board conducting any inspection of the fishing

vessels from which they worked or having any involvement whatever in

standards of safety, if he would take steps to instruct the Workers'

Compensation Board that this area of work should no longer be ignored

by it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not

certain that it has

been ignored by the board. But I will make immediate inquiries, take

the question on notice and provide the member with the situation in

which the board finds itself with respect to this particular

occupational class.

MR. HOWARD: There's a supplementary

question. I wonder if,

while the minister is doing that, he would mind checking that there is

in the Ministry of Environment a preliminary study with respect to the

clams themselves. Will the minister then, combined with the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), who has an interest in the clams, exert

his influence and say that you should have a similar interest with

respect to the lives and the safety of the people digging the clams?

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave

to proceed to

public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, just before

commencing —

unfortunately I was not in the House — I too would like to extend the

very best welcome to Bob and Ann Strachan.

Committee on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

MEDICAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 15: Mr. Rogers in the chair.

section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I noticed that the

House Leader of

the government side is in a real hurry. He says: "Aye, aye, aye." I

just want to ask a simple question, and that question is: is this new

terminology "preregistration hospital training" — as opposed to

internship — becoming generally used across the North American

continent and throughout the world, or are we unique in this respect?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm told

this is the term

which is becoming fashionable everywhere. It also has a more practical

application because there are several categories or designations of

persons working in hospitals before registration. This, then, will

accommodate them. I'm told this is the term that's becoming acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, while I'm on my feet, could I ask the House as

well to

recognize another former member of this House — and almost a stranger

in the gallery — who is here and say hello to a former member from one

of the Burnabys, "Digger" Ray Loewen.

MS. BROWN: I would ask leave of the House

to give a very

special welcome to the person who stepped down so that I might

represent Burnaby-Edmonds.

[ Page 702 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps members will allow

the Chair to say a

special word of welcome; and, strangely enough, in this position, it's

"Chairman" quite easily.

MR. BARNES: I only wanted to remark on the

last remarks, Mr.

Chairman. I wanted to suggest that I hope the former member for

Burnaby-Edmonds is not here on business. [Laughter.]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering

whether the use of

preregistration hospital training means that the role of the intern is

now being expanded to include nursing psychologists and a number of

other people in the health delivery field, and is not exclusively

referring to doctors.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, not here, because

this Act only

allows for the licensing of physicians.

Sections 2 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MS. BROWN: This is another instance, Mr.

Chairman, where

there's been a change in name. Actually it would have been very helpful

to us if there had been an explanation that accompanied these name

changes so that we would know exactly what's going on. Now the dean of

medicine is no longer the dean of medicine. The dean of medicine now

becomes the director of the undergraduate clinical clerkship program in

the faculty of medicine at the University of British Columbia.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this is

not what this

amendment does. It doesn't change the name of the dean of medicine. The

dean of medicine will remain. It only gives this responsibility to this

new position — which, I must say, is a mouthful — but it is a person at

the university who already does this in fact. So it's the director of

the undergraduate clinical clerkship program in the faculty of medicine

who does what this

section says now. All we're doing is giving him that

opportunity in the legislation. The dean of medicine remains as the

dean of medicine.

Sections 10 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

MR. COCKE: The minister advised us when we

were enjoying

second reading of this bill that there was a situation in the past

where a doctor could provide a stumbling block for any kind of

investigation. That has been to some extent eliminated here. He also

agreed that there is a possibility here that the committee, if they

were biased against the doctor, could very well also see to it, because

of the fact that he's now suspended at this point in time, that he be

suspended for a significant period of time without having a hearing. He

must have a report from the committee 14 days prior to the hearing, but

it doesn't give him any kind of assurance that he might get a hearing

within a reasonable time.

I wonder whether the minister has thought in terms of any kind

of a

change that could provide just a little bit of control over the

committee. Now I'm not suggesting that the committee is going to be

biased or act unfairly, but there's a possibility that might occur.

When you're making law, it strikes me that you should make law so that

it is as even-handed as at all possible. I'm a little distressed that

there is this kind of a situation where I see a possibility of people

subverting the intent of the law. I wonder what the minister has to say

about that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I guess rather than

putting in actual

numbers of days — it would be difficult to do that — I recognize the

problem and promise that we'll have a look at it if there's a way of

doing it. The investigation is to go ahead forthwith, and there is the

word "promptly" in there in terms of submitting the written report. The

legislative people will tell us that "promptly" can be challenged if it

isn't, in fact, promptly, although it can't be tied down to a specific

number of days — 7 or 14 or 21 or whatever. But I'm told that the words

"promptly" and "forthwith" do allow for some action if in fact

"promptly" and "forthwith" doesn't happen. But I promise I can take it

under advisement and have a look at it and watch it very carefully. If

something happens, we could see if there could be some legislative

changes which would help.

MS. BROWN: Under

section 48(

a) where it

says "may appoint an

investigating committee of one or more persons," I'm wondering if it's

deliberately vague to ensure that lay people may be part of this

committee, or whether it's implied in the statute that only medical

people can sit on this committee. For a number of years one of the

recommendations coming from lay people to governments of every

political stripe has been that there should be at least one lay person,

if not more than one, or people of another discipline sitting on these

committees to investigate professional groups. I'm not just speaking of

doctors; I think lawyers need the same kind of protection, too. Is this

implied lay people under this particular section, or isn't it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There certainly

wouldn't be any problem

with a lay person being put on this committee. In the old Act it said

"any person." The new Act simply says it "may appoint an investigating

committee of one or more persons." That does not tie them down to

members of the medical profession.

MR. COCKE: I love the medical practitioners

in our province.

For the most part, they are super people. But they do have a tendency

to do what they kind of have to do and not do what they don't have to

do. Under this

section in the old Act, I recall very vividly where I

persuaded them they should have a member of the citizenry at large, a

lay person, to sit down under grievances or when a practitioner's

licence is being looked at by the college. They agreed, and there was a

person appointed who acted on a few occasions. Suddenly, in late 1975,

there was an election. I was no longer Minister of Health. I talked to

that chap the other day and asked him: "How often have you been called

to the College of Physicians and Surgeons to act as the lay person on

the grievance committee — or whatever the committee is called?" He

said: "Not once." That's the problem; and it's the problem I suggested

to the minister. I'm not suggesting the minister has any hand in this;

he hasn't. Had I known, I would have been in touch with him some time

ago to acquaint him with something he would have no knowledge

[ Page 703 ]

of, except that I just happened to

trip over it.

That's what I said in my original argument here. It's all very well and

good for the minister to suggest: "Well, we'll wait and see if anything

bad happens." That's not good law, in my view. I really think the

minister should give an undertaking that this uneven-handed option or

ability will be taken out of here and that he will assure us that in

the next session of the Legislature he will at least make every effort

to bring forward another amendment to this Act that will give the kind

of even-handed approach I think this law should have.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I could be corrected

by the lawyers, but

I'm told that "forthwith" in law means "immediately." That means that

the actions must be taken immediately; there's no choice. If they

aren't taken immediately, then that person is open to some kind of

action. Of course, after this there is always the opportunity to go to

the courts.

I think the medical appeal committee — which is not this

committee

and which is not under this Act — now has a lay member appointed who must sit, not one

who is to be

asked by the doctors or anybody else, as the patterns of practice

committee now has, or is about to have. It is about to have two lay

members on it; they are about to be appointed now. From that point of

view, we've got some coverage there. This legislation, which in many

ways is not the government's legislation.... I'm told that "promptly"

and "forthwith" mean "immediately," and if it doesn't happen, then

there can be action taken.

MR. COCKE: Yes, there can be action taken.

Do you know what

you can do? You can sue. But the problem is that later on in the Act

you say you can't sue. If you go to

section 22, the protective

provision sees to it that those people who sit on those committees

cannot be sued by the person charged. You've given almighty protection

to these people.

The reason I have not brought forward an amendment is because

this

thing has to be carefully thought out by legislative counsel, et

cetera. The Attorney-General is nodding his head.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Pass that message along to

some of your

colleagues.

MR. COCKE: Now, you see, he spoils it all

by giving us a

smart remark.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like the minister to be very well

acquainted with the fact that there is a problem here of potential.

He's nodding his head. I'm quite satisfied with that.

Sections 19 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

MR. STUPICH: I have just one very brief

question, Mr.

Chairman, that I have to ask for a constituent of mine. Is there

anything in this

section that could possibly be used to interfere with

the proprietor of a health-food store in selling vitamins and foods

like that?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Not in this Act, Mr.

Chairman. There are

some others.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what's happening?

The member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is getting the same kind of phone calls, wires

and visits that the Minister of Health and I have been getting. I can't

believe it, you know. Here I have been for the last solid week an

apologist for the Minister of Health, my avowed enemy by our

constitution. I've had to point out that he has not changed the Act; if

anything, as a matter of fact, he's broadened the Act.

Anyway, this is the kind of area where we always create

suspicion.

We always create suspicion around the professions by virtue of all

these protective devices. I think that we really have to look very

strongly sincerely at an umbrella type of legislation for all of health

care in this province, as suggested to some extent in the Mustard

report, as hinted at in the Castonguay report, and as hinted at and

also dealt with to some extent in the Foulkes report.

Everybody's twitchy, and I notice that the minister now says

that

the college is getting to the point where it is prepared to give some

of its responsibility to another authority. Good, let's talk about it,

and let's just see what can be done, because in that way you have an

assured public. Right now, every time you introduce any kind of a

change into the Medical Act in this province, forty thousand people

say: "There go the doctors again, charging over the walls and trying to

take over everything." It's unfortunate. I don't see it in this Act,

but that's what happens every time. The reason they're twitchy is that

there is an authority here that gives the doctors some pretty heavy

responsibilities, and along with that some fairly heavy protection.

Sections 23 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the committee

rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 15. Medical Amendment Act. 1979, reported complete

without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 21, Mr.

Speaker.

NEW WESTMINSTER

REDEVELOPMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 21; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this

section

bothers me; I'm not at

all sure that there has been enough consideration of this whole

question of parking in downtown New Westminster. It strikes me that in

the process of trying to put this together....

Look, I'm complimenting the government to some extent. It's

the

second option that I would have had. I wish

[ Page 704 ]

they had gone ahead with the first

option, but, you

know, when a new government's elected they make some stupid decisions.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf), who is so

all-wise, should stand up sometime and put his words on the record. You

don't know what you're talking about, Mr. Member. So why don't you keep

your peace? Anyway, Mr. Chairman, back to the question before us. In

regard to the parking situation that I referred to the other day, I

wonder what the minister has to say about Douglas College. It now has

2,600 cars parked around it, and when it's moved down to Royal Avenue

and allocated 600 parking spots, I wonder what that is going to do to

the downtown core of New Westminster. There are going to be 2,000

free-floating cars around there trying to find some place to park. Now

does that not inhibit potential development in that area, if you have

that kind of a parking problem? There is very, very little likelihood

that they're going to go way down onto the ramp, and there isn't room

anyway for any particular cars down on the ramp if there's any kind of

shopping or other people doing business in the downtown core. I'm

really worried about this, and I don't think it's brought out well

enough. That's one of the reasons why I've been suspicious about the

fact that Douglas College is being moved there, when they have the

wide-open spaces of half or a good third of the old Woodlands property

and part of the old penitentiary property that was given to them by a

very thoughtful former government.

But anyway, Mr. Chairman, can the minister talk to us about

this

whole question of parking? What is in prospect?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, before

I answer I would

just like to take this opportunity, while I'm on my feet, to mention

that the people I introduced earlier, Mr. and Mrs. Scholefield, are

very much a part of this particular building. Mr. Scholefield's father

was the man who started the library, and apparently there is a plaque

on the wall in his honour. There was also a copper beech planted in his

memory on one side of the building.

The two young fellows who are visiting here from Ireland are

here

because naturally they want to enjoy British Columbia, and they're very

impressed. They've only been here a few days. But they also have a

mission in that they're attempting to track down all the relations to

John Hart. Mr. Jerry Slamon is a distant nephew to the hon. former

Premier John Hart. I'm very pleased that they are here, and I was very

pleased to have the opportunity of introducing them.

With respect to the question on the section.

MR. COCKE: I'm glad you're getting around

to it, Bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Thank you, Mr.

Member.... I think it

shouldn't be overlooked that New Westminster has been very much a part

of the planning, and it will continue to be the force with respect to

the planning for the downtown core. It's New Westminster that looks at

the plans of all these public or private facilities and stipulates the

amount of parking which is required for each and every facility.

However, much behind the whole purpose of the plan and the

redevelopment is to introduce residential living into the downtown

core. The whole of the waterfront

section 1s envisioned to be

redeveloped to allow good accommodation for the students who, in fact,

will be able to walk to their classes. In this way, they will introduce

life to the downtown core which has, up until now or certainly for a

good many years, seen a decline of this very necessary ingredient.

So it's hoped and thought, as I understand it, by the city of

New

Westminster that the parking provided is ample for the requirements as

the redevelopment takes place. They are, in fact, looking to the day

when the need for the car within that downtown core will be diminished

to a degree. Instead, we'll be looking towards other means of

transportation, and to having people living near the school so that

they won't have to travel all that distance.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this minister has

proven beyond a

shadow of a doubt that when you don't know what you're talking about,

make a flowery statement and sit down.

People are going to move beside a two-year college so that

they can

go to school. I wonder whether they're going to buy one of those very

high-priced condominiums or townhouses that are planned for there.

Really, I asked a definitive question. If it was to be answered at all,

it should have been answered definitively. But instead of that, the

minister says that he hopes someday we're going to have some

transportation down there. Well, you haven't now. You hope that the

city of New Westminster is going to see to it that all of the

conditions are met for a better development of this downtown area. But,

Mr. Chairman, in this very Act is the amount of money that's set aside

for parking — $5 million; for city street improvement, there's $2

million, et cetera, et cetera. At least the borrowing power is implicit

in the Act. But I would just like the minister to suggest to me whether

there's been any real thought at the city level. I'm afraid,

unfortunately, that the city is quite prepared to almost overlook

anything to get this downtown core going. I think that's a bit of a

rub. That's right. They're desperate. They're drowning. That area has

been neglected not only by governments but by the business community

for years. There's been no real thought.

Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, how it worked. Every year the

chamber

of commerce would meet and they'd bring their adding machine down to

this special meeting, and everybody would be asked: "How much are you

or your company going to invest in the downtown area of New

Westminster?" They'd add it all up — "I'm going to do this, I'm going

to do that" — and then at the end of the meeting they'd walk away

assured. "Imagine, we're going to have $250 million invested!" Well,

you know, that's the kind of bathwater, and that's the problem.... But

I really don't think that enough real planning is going into this. The

fact is that you are leaving ICBC in the high-priced Vancouver core and

you're moving Douglas College in with very little thought in terms of

parking.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Just one quick

comment, Mr. Chairman.

Actually the legislation provides them the opportunity of determining

and planning the amount of parking or whatever else is required. It's

still the city that determines the needs and the numbers, and that's

how I would like to see it.

[ Page 705 ]

MR. COCKE: What is this bill all about?

This is a partnership

bill. It is a partnership between the government, the corporation and

New Westminster city. It's not just the city. That's why you're doing

this. It's an entirely new approach to the whole thing. Frankly, I

think it's a rather good approach. That's all. Let's not hang it all on

the people in downtown New Westminster — or at least the city council.

I reiterate: they're desperate; they really want things going. They're

desperate to the point that I've been lobbied all to blazes on this

bill and any other project that's been going.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is a

distressing section. I

don't understand why this bill has to be a proclamation bill. Is there

anything that you're worrying about with this bill? When is it going to

be proclaimed? Why does it have to be proclaimed? Why can it not be

proclaimed with every other piece of legislation that goes through this

House in this session? Any time I ever see a proclamation bill, that's

one that I can see sitting there at the doorway of the cabinet of this

province waiting to be proclaimed. Now if it's important to get this

downtown core moving, if it's important to get this bill through, why

do we have a proclamation

section in the bill?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It gives us the

opportunity to proclaim

section by section. I see an

article here from the Columbian by the

mayor, where it

stated: "The expropriation section, for example, may not be required,

and thus the proclamation of it may be unnecessary." That's the purpose

of it: we can proclaim

section by section.

MR. COCKE: That probably is the case, Mr.

Chairman. But if

that's the case, that

section shouldn't have been in there.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Why? Why should it be there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we must just

discuss the

section

MR. COCKE: Okay, well, it worries me. How

soon are you going

to proclaim all but the expropriation

section of the Act?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In due course.

MR. COCKE: In due course — that's the whole

thing. This

Legislature is discussing a bill and the cabinet is being given a carte

blanche to decide in due course when they're going to pass the bill.

Now come on, get serious! We have far too much from this government of

this kind of high-handed treatment of people in this province. The

proclamation

section gives you the right to fool around with it for the

next ten years if you want. If I were the people in New Westminster I

wouldn't be any too confident tonight that you're going to do anything.

The Attorney-General says: "In due course." Let that be shown on the

record.

Section 12 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1979, reported

complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 16,

Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. CHABOT: As the Legislature is

aware, the Ministry of

Lands, Parks and Housing was established in December 1978, with a

mandate to ensure the maintenance and improvement of a quality system

of parks and the encouragement of the best use of Crown land for

agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and recreational

opportunities within the province of British Columbia. This bill I am

presenting today, the Land Amendment Act, 1979, is the result of a

review of ministry legislation which was undertaken to see what changes

were needed to fulfil this mandate.

Later I will be presenting a companion piece of legislation,

the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, which, together with this

bill, will provide my ministry with the legislation that is needed to

achieve the goal of making land available to citizens of British

Columbia. The Land Act is one of the original statutes of this province

and has been the focus of a series of amendments from time to time to

keep it abreast of changing circumstances and government policies.

As you are aware, one of the purposes of my ministry is to

provide

for the disposal of Crown lands for both public and private benefit.

Concern has been expressed that the process of disposal is both

time-consuming and antiquated, and thus a major purpose of this bill is

to make it administratively easier to provide a Crown grant conveying

land in fee simple. Clearly our citizens wish to own, Mr. Speaker, not

rent. Several provisions of the bill have this in mind.

The definition of Crown grant, Crown land and disposition are

clarified and simplified so that more simple legal formalities can

accompany the sale of Crown lands. Reservations to the Crown and the

provision of titles are simplified and more clearly stated. The bill

also contains the provision whereby the requirement for full payment is

replaced by a power to transfer the title and secure the unpaid

purchase price through a loan. Our intent here is to sell building lots

with a modest down payment and provide the purchaser with a loan for a

period of up to one year, so that he can have the opportunity to obtain

mortgage financing and commence construction. To prevent speculation,

construction of a residence will be a condition of sale on these terms.

Provision for this program will be contained

[ Page 706 ]

in regulations which we will be

preparing later

this year. There is also in this bill a provision that expands the

authority to issue licences of occupation for the use of Crown lands.

That will make it easier to provide for the use of unsurveyed remote

areas of the province.

A second major purpose of the bill is to clarify

administrative

responsibility for Crown land that is retained by the province. Put

simply, the bill provides that all administration of Crown land that is

not specifically the responsibility of another ministry is the

responsibility of my ministry. In addition it provides for the transfer

of administration to other ministries by order-in-council. Thus, where

a ministry has the need for Crown lands to accomplish a specific

project — for example, the construction of a highway or a hospital —

the administration of the land would be clearly transferred to them.

There are, however, many situations in which other ministries do not

need to have full administrative responsibility for Crown lands, but

need to exercise control over a specific use. For example, the Ministry

of Forests must have full authority to administer the timber on the

land, but does not need control of the land itself. Thus matters of

non-forest use of forest lands and the removal of lands from the

provincial forests for sale — after its removal, I might say — are to

be the responsibility of my ministry. This clarifies matters for the

public who will only have one agency in the provincial government to

deal with in applications for the use of Crown lands.

Finally, the bill provides for the establishment by regulation

all interest rates charged on moneys owing on Crown lands by

regulation. At the moment the Act has a specific interest rate of 8

percent, which is unrealistic when one looks at the interest rates of

today. The purchaser of Crown lands should pay a fair price for the

land he is buying, including a fair rate of interest on money he owes

the Crown. Interest rates will be set and adjusted, as we are already

doing in the Home Purchase Assistance Program.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move second reading

this bill.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the ministry which

the minister

represents is known by its employees as the "Ministry of Leftovers." We

will be talking about that in our discussion of the second bill. The

fact that Lands, Parks and Housing are in one Act doesn't make any

sense whatsoever. The remarks of the minister actually relate to the

two bills, and I want to address just Bill 16, the Land Amendment Act,

The powers which the minister had prior to the introduction of

this

Act were, in fact, adequate. All of the activity that is being embarked

upon could actually have been carried out under the Act, with the

exception of the fact that people can pay over time for Crown land. The

option to purchase was within his power to grant before.

I would like to address my remarks more specifically to what

has

happened prior to the introduction of this bill. And that is that the

expectation level has been escalated by this government since 1975,

when the Premier went around the province and talked about 95 percent

of the land being owned by the Crown and being inaccessible to the

public. He knew at that time, as we all know now, that the largest

percentage of that land is already under the disposition of the

tree-farm licences. The amendments to the Forest Act gave longer and

more stable tenure — actually in perpetuity — to the forest companies.

We'll be talking about that when we talk about the Forest Act.

I was interested in the remarks of the minister that some of

the

tree-farm licence land would be made available to the public, because I

think it should. I think we'd get better forest management practices in

this province if a certain percentage of TFL land was, in fact, under

the jurisdiction of this Act and was made available to the public.

When the 1975 election campaign was underway and the 95

percent

figure was being used, it was followed later on by announcements that

large tracts of land all over the province would be made available to

the Crown. Every MLA in this House is getting inquiries from

constituents about the courses and procedures to get access to that

land. The minister then made an announcement. He withdrew the large

tracts, and talked about 64 million acres.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He never did.

MR. HANSON: He never did, eh? The reports

in the press were

that the minister stated that 64 million acres would be made available

to the public of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You don't believe

everything you read in the

press, do you?

MR. HANSON: He's going to go down in

history as the

60-million acre man that never made it.

What we have now are 800 parcels in only one area of the

province,

the northeast sector of the province. The member for North Peace River

(Mr. Brummet) enjoys that. But the other members in other

constituencies are going to have to direct their focus to this

minister. He raised, expectation levels and he's going to have to

account for that. He's going to have to answer for the fact that land

is not available, and probably will not be made available.

My colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) some time ago tabled

report that was prepared by Mr. O'Genski, the director of rural

subdivisions, and I would like to read the cover letter into the record:

"To: C.O. Grey, Assistant Deputy Minister

"Re: Crown Land Development and Sale

"Attached herewith is a detailed report

and

summary

for our total ministry covering Crown land for development and/or sale

in the following categories...."

MR. LAUK: He said it didn't exist.

MR. HANSON: That's correct. When the first

member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) alluded to this, the minister said this

report didn't exist.

Here are the categories: rural-residential; recreational;

small

holding; agricultural; rural; commercial; urban residential.

"The report has been priorized in the

following

manner: l (

a) for immediate disposition to: (

i) the general public,

(ii) the private sector...."

Why would Crown land be made available to the private sector?

It's

public land.

"1(

b) disposition within six months to:

(

i) the

general public, (ii) the private sector...."

The report goes on to indicate the

various

categories.

[ Page 707 ]

The question was raised in this House, and I would like to ask

the

minister why certain Crown lots are being made available to the private

sector. It's supposed to be for individuals, not real estate companies.

That question was raised by the member for Prince Rupert and also the

first member for Vancouver Centre. We would like to know why the

administration of this will be through the real estate industry.

In

summary, I would like to say that the powers that this Act

provides were already in existence, with the exception of the granting

of the payment over time. The option-to-purchase provision was always

in existence. A great disservice was done to the public by raising

expectation levels all over the province that they would have access to

public lands, which I don't believe they will ever have. I'd also like

to mention briefly the Ilmar Tavalar report on the management audit of

the land management branch. I understand the remark of the minister

that the system presently in place requires some upgrading. I agree.

In the report

summary of conclusions, it says:

"There appear to be deficiencies in

almost all aspects

of the land disposition process, characterized by the referrals going

to 23 government agencies for every conceivable opinion. There is a

constant transmittal of notices between head offices, the applicant,

the region and the districts. Some 150 forms are used. The relevant

land interests are found from cluttered maps where everything is saved,

including the irrelevant and old lot registers, and where everything

looks lost. The result is that Crown land is not easily parted with by

the branch. In fact, the average disposition takes over a year."

option

has always been there to occupy it, to make improvements on it and to

purchase it. We are in support of that. However, we do think that the

minister has done a great disservice in that the land expectations are

raised to such a high level that they will not be met.

MR. PASSARELL: I have many concerns about

the proposed land

bill in front of us — a land bill that is related to the acquisition of

Crown land to the public, and one bill that shows no regard for the

wishes and aspirations of the native people of this province. While

specific aspects of land claims and aboriginal rights have not been

dealt with in B.C., the assumption still remains that the Crown holds

vast sections of land in trust for the first citizens of this province

to rightfully gain their land.

If we the legislators walk through the rotunda on the lower

floor,

there are displayed four paintings showing the development of British

Columbia. In each of the paintings there are only two races shown: the

whites and the natives. Both groups are displayed as companions,

needing each other for cooperation and development. There was

cooperation then, but we, the immigrants to this land, have forgotten

that initial cooperation and good will. A hundred years ago when we,

the immigrants of this country, bartered with the natives, we used to

give some trinkets or some beads. If the natives were lucky, a piece of

paper was signed in exchange for a treaty.

Manifest destiny was always an integral part of our

development. But

while this specific bill deals with land occupied under treaty

settlement, the foundation has been made that the acquisition of Crown

land in other areas of the province will be easier in the future. I ask

this government one simple question. Can you give assurances that any

disputed land involving Crown land will not be put up for transaction?

The land claims and aboriginal issues across this province will

probably not be dealt with in our future, but the fact remains that if

parcels or sections of Crown land are sold, we the government, on both

sides of the House, are once again displaying a lack of concern to the

native people of this province. In the Canadian Bill of Rights there is

a

section that protects the security of the person and the enjoyment of

property. We cannot ignore the fact that the acquisition of land is a

right that all individuals strive for.

Mordecai Richler's character, Duddy Kravitz, strove for land

more

than anything else in his life. Our native people also strive for land,

and I sincerely hope their fate will be better than Duddy's. I do not

believe we, the immigrants of this country, can give the province away

for land claims. It is not realistic to give away settled land. But the

unsettled land, the Crown land of this province, is a trust of the

Crown and there is no individual ownership of the Crown. All the

residents share an equal part of that vested interest.

We have often turned our back on the native people of this

province,

but before we start to divvy up the province further into private

ownership land lots, let us as representatives of the public make a

pledge to our first citizens that disputed land will not be sold.

In conclusion, I sincerely hope that all members of this House

will

not jeopardize the rights of the native people in this province. I

sincerely hope the dreams and the aspirations of the native people will

not become another plea in the night to us, the immigrants.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like

also to get a

response from the minister when he sums up debate. I know the minister

is aware that the Canada Land Inventory, besides designating the land

capabilities for agricultural use, with which people are very aware,

has done other studies for forestry use and, in particular, for wild

ungulate land capability. I would like the minister to express the

degree to which that land capability is going to be considered in terms

of choosing lands for disposal. I think it is a very, very high

priority. It is these wildlife ungulates which really distinguish our

province as one with probably the greatest population. At he rate they

are going in Africa, it will be the last remaining area for wild

ungulate herds.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In response to the member

for

Nelson-Creston, the suggestion he has put forward is one which is in

practice today. The land capability for wildlife is always taken into

consideration. Prior to any disposition of Crown land taking place,

there's an automatic referral to Fish and Wildlife for their reaction

to dispossession. We heed the advice of Fish and Wildlife, and we are

criticized from time to time for having done so. Nevertheless, in most

instances we take into serious consideration the views of Fish and

Wildlife about habitat.

I had some difficulty with the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson). He went around in a circle. He sounded like Bob Williams for a

minute. He was against the bill at the outset, and he eventually came

around and said he was all for it. He suggested that the bill did

nothing, then he went on to relate how it facilitated our ability as a

government to make Crown land available to people, by individuals being

able to make a modest down payment for

[ Page 708 ]

land, which would help those of low

income in

British Columbia own their own land on which to construct their home.

The alienation of land for residential purposes will be

contingent

upon a habitable dwelling being constructed thereon within a specified

period of time. This facilitates and promotes private home ownership in

British Columbia.

The member talked about the availability of this. There are

expectations out there; I recognize that. We expect to meet the need

for Crown land that has been expressed in British Columbia — the need,

not the speculative opportunities which some people might suggest — and

to aid and to assist individuals who want to own their own home on

their own land.

The member makes reference to a triple-leaked memo. It was

leaked to

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk); he got the first

leak. Then it was leaked in here by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea), after having been leaked from the first member for Vancouver

Centre as a great revelation of government policy. That memo, my

friend, was merely an exchange of ideas between two civil servants.

That intergovernmental memo was not government policy. It was a

recommendation; it was an idea being put forward.

MR. LAUK: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: If you just look at the

document you'll find

out that it's not government policy.

MR, LAUK: They would go to all that trouble

without your

knowledge? Nonsense!

HON. MR. CHABOT: That member for Vancouver

Centre gets very

agitated because he's been caught leaking and making erroneous

statements about that particular intergovernmental memo.

MR. LAUK: You denied it existed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Speaker, there is

a vast

difference.... This bill will make it possible for British Columbians

to own their own land. That's a great difference.

The second member for Victoria suggests that the New

Democratic

Party supports that concept. That's a bunch of nonsense. I've heard

repeatedly, while they were government over here, that they were

opposed to the private ownership of land, that land should be leased to

individuals rather than privately owned. That's where we differ — this

party versus that party. We believe in private ownership, and they

believe in the people being tenants of the state.

It gives me great pleasure to move second reading.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, the

minister attributes

remarks to all members of the opposite side of the House which are not

true. I wish he would become a responsible member of this House, and I

wish he would become a responsible minister. I know that is asking

rather a lot, but that would be something desirable in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before I put the

question, I think

all members are aware that each member taking his place and making

statements in this House accepts the responsibility for the veracity of

those statements. I think also, hon. members, that to try to direct the

attention of the House to the veracity or otherwise of statements made

during second reading is to abuse the rules, and to take an opportunity

to make a second speech in the House. I think that this should be

resisted in this House.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,

I just wanted to

make the record clear that I and the party I represent have never

stated in this House that we oppose the private ownership of land. I

want to correct the minister's erroneous statement in that regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

Will the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke please come to order.

The question is second reading of Bill 16.

Motion approved.

Bill 16, Land Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and

referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 17,

Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF LANDS,

PARKS AND HOUSING ACT

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm going to lower my

voice because they

take exception to my raising my voice.

AN HON. MEMBER: We just want you to tell

the truth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I wish you'd

have those remarks

by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) withdrawn. They suggest that I wasn't

telling the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, charges imputing

statements of

untruth to other members of the House are not permitted in the House. I

ask, first of all, the second member for Victoria to please withdraw

the statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot

interrupt in the middle

of a point of order. The hon. member knows this. We are now addressing

the first part of the point of order, and we're asking the second

member for Victoria to please withdraw the statement.

MR. HANSON: The minister did not tell the

truth; the

minister....

MR. SPEAKER: We're not debating the issue,

hon. member. I

just ask the hon. member to withdraw.

[ Page 709 ]

MR. KING: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot

interrupt a point of

order in progress.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we

are in the middle

of a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

There has been a

request for a withdrawal of a statement that says the minister is not

telling the truth.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We can settle

the issue by having

the hon. member simply withdraw. Please withdraw, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: I said he should tell the

truth. He stated an

untruth about the position of our party on the private ownership of

land.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the debate that

the man is

referring to is previous to a question already placed in this House and

cannot be brought into the debate on this particular bill. Therefore I

would ask the hon. members to please observe the rules of the House and

orderly debate, and I would ask the hon. member whether or not he

imputed any wrongdoing to the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

MR. HANSON: He dropped in my estimation,

but I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, sir.

MR. KING: On a point of order, the minister

sat there and

hollered across the floor, "Tell the truth! Tell the truth!" repeatedly

during the same debate, and I ask him to withdraw statements which he,

himself, apparently takes exception to when they are directed at him.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we'll look after that

matter immediately

after the one that we've settled.

The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre: did the hon.

member

impute any motive of wrongdoing to the minister?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that

the minister

should tell the truth and that this side of the House wanted him to

tell the truth. Surely that's an honourable motivation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: We desire that every hon. member

speak the truth in

this House, and I'm sure so does he.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the first member

for Vancouver

Centre whether or not he has imputed any wrongdoing to the hon.

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

MR. LAUK: I have not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, the House is

satisfied.

I would ask the hon. the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

whether he has imputed any wrongdoing to any other member of this House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, if I have, I

withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. And

now to the debate

on Bill 17.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased

to be able to

introduce the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, 1979.

The Act provides for the organization of this ministry and

incorporates provisions formerly made through the Housing Act, Ministry

of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act and other relevant statutes. A

major purpose of the ministry is to provide for the maintenance and

development of a quality system of parks and for access to the abundant

outdoor recreational opportunities our province provides. This Act is

the expression and statute of this purpose and includes a provision

whereby safety standards may be introduced by regulations to secure the

safety of outdoor recreation.

The former Housing Fund has been renamed the "Crown Land

Fund." and

authority for the use of the fund in support of capital expenditures

throughout the ministry is provided,

whereas in the Housing Act the

fund was limited to residential purposes. The Housing Fund had its

origins as a means of financing housing projects, but it has been used

exclusively during the last few years to finance land development.

Allow me to illustrate this, Mr. Speaker: through

section 215(

a) of the

Municipal Act, major loans have been made from the Housing Fund to

municipalities to provide for the servicing of private residential

land, the loan being repaid by developers or builders at the time

municipal permits are issued.

Surrey has authorized to borrowers, as an example, $8 million;

Richmond, $4 million; Whistler, $600,000. Major loans have also been

made to municipalities to allow them to develop and service Crown land

for residential purposes, the loans being repaid from the proceeds of

lot sales and the value of the land being divided on an equal basis

between the Crown and the municipality.

Finally, the fund has provided the ministry with the capacity

directly service Crown land, as in the Pine Creek subdivision in Atlin,

and sell the lots to local purchasers for 10 percent down on the

condition that they build on the lot within a one-year period. This

condition is designed to prevent speculation on Crown lands. This

successful pattern of Crown land development through the Housing Fund

is now, through this ministry Act, to be expanded so that Crown land

can be developed and service provided for the full range of uses —

residential, commercial, recreational and agricultural. Industrial uses

will be developed through the British Columbia Development Corporation.

Crown land will be made available to the corporation, and all

industrial uses will be developed through the corporation.

[ Page 710 ]

Crown land is for the use of the people of British Columbia

today

and tomorrow. I see every advantage in the government having an active

role in making Crown land available for sale in a planned and selective

manner. The Crown still owns 94 percent of the land area of the

province and, although much of this land is already in use as in our

extensive forest and rangelands or, alternatively, is rocky and bare, I

see much scope to make more available to purchase. The recent offering

of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation shares show

that British Columbia's citizens want to participate in the development

of the province. The Crown Land Fund will serve the same aspirations by

assisting my ministry to develop Crown lands for sale. The ministry Act

gives my ministry the authority it needs to plan for Crown land, to

develop Crown land and to sell Crown land in the most efficient manner

possible.

Through the development of Crown land, the whole province

benefits.

The buyer benefits because he receives land in a freehold state, as

both an asset for his use and an investment in the future. The province

benefits because the proceeds of the sale are credited to the Crown

Land Fund and can finance further development, The people benefit

because it is in everybody's interest that prosperity and employment be

increased in British Columbia. This Act and the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs and Housing Act, together with the accompanying changes in the

Land Act, provide my ministry with the legislation that is needed to

make Crown land more available for our prosperity and for our future as

British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move second reading.

MR. GABELMANN: I wish we had an opportunity

in this House to

have the person who writes his speeches in the seat which the minister

occupies. Whenever he reads his speeches, he appears to be a very

dignified and very responsible member of the House. Whenever he goes

off on his own he is a very undignified and very irresponsible member

of this House, in my judgment, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, undignified? Shocking!

Unbelievable! A

shocking statement. I'm offended.

MR. GABELMANN: One of the reasons this

Legislature is

renowned across this country for a very low level of behaviour and a

very low level of debate is because we have the kinds of speeches that

were made on the close of second reading of the previous bill. I, for

one, don't appreciate that kind of debate on law-making, which is a

very responsible and important part of our job.

Bill 17 is a bill which the official opposition intends to

oppose,

Mr. Speaker. Our judgment is that when the Premier was reorganizing his

cabinet, he had a few things left over which he wasn't much interested

in. He then lumped them together and gave them to one of the members he

wasn't much interested in. We ended up with the member for Columbia

River having responsibility for three disparate areas of government

responsibility.

When the minister responsible for Lands, Parks and Housing

attempts

in this bill to make, a case for the amalgamation of those areas of

responsibility, I think he fails in making that case.

We intend to oppose the bill for one primary reason and a

number of

lesser ones. The primary reason is that we believe the housing

situation in this province is one that should have the undivided

attention of a minister fully responsible for housing. What we have, in

fact, is a ministry that has housing as one of its lesser

responsibilities and one of its lesser priorities. Clearly, in

listening to the minister making his introductory comments in the

second reading, his emphasis is on getting rid of Crown land — getting

rid of land that we all own so that more and more of his friends in the

private sector can have it.

I am very much in favour, as are all members of this House, of

making land available to people who intend to develop rural

subdivisions outside of municipalities in areas that are often under

tree-farm licences. I favour making it possible for them to get into

those kinds of rural subdivisions and perhaps two-acre parcels or

whatever is appropriate in that particular area. If that were the

intention of the minister and his ministry — to make housing available

to those people who want to develop their own property rather than

having developers develop the property — then we would have more reason

to support the bill and the minister. The record doesn't show that this

is the direction that the Social Credit Party is taking, and my

dealings with the minister over the years don't lend any confidence on

my part that he intends to make housing a primary responsibility of his

ministry.

I think the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) described

the

minister as the "Minister of Leftovers." In many ways that is an

accurate description of his responsibility. If we have to mix and merge

some ministries, and I admit that's the case in some instances, let's

put housing with something which is more appropriate. Housing is far

more appropriate with municipal affairs — where the people live and

where the people have housing needs — than it is with Crown lands or

parks, where the people don't live and will not be able to live in

great numbers. The problem for most people who have housing needs in

this province is not a problem of land. It's a problem of income. The

problem relates to that probably one-third of our society who do not

have the level of income required to meet housing needs in this

province. They won't be affected by the opening up of 800 blocks in the

Peace River country.

The problem relates to a lack, on the part of this government,

any will or intention to massively support public and cooperative

housing — the so-called third sector of housing. Because of the obvious

intention on the part of the government, and the minister, to downgrade

the need for housing in this province, we intend to oppose the

establishment of the ministry as designed in this bill.

I don't think I will say very much more than that, Mr.

Speaker. The

time for more extensive debate on some of these sections is in second

reading. I am particularly distressed at the wide powers the minister

has in some of the sections. I am giving notice right now that

section

9 is the

section which we intend to deal with in committee. The kind of

absolute and widespread powers given to that particular minister scare

some of us to death.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the bill is a very

straightforward,

easy-to-understand bill. It could very easily have seen the end of

second reading after the last member's speech. But the minister's

deportment, behaviour and everything else tells me that there's no

possible way that one can support a bill that he places before this

House, particularly with that kind of deportment.

[ Page 711 ]

Mr. Speaker, I'I name a few situations. He reads the lying ads

that

his party had in the paper during the last election.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

We must clarify, I

think, for the House, because there seems to be some confusion, the

three kinds of debate that we have in this House. There is the debate

in Committee of Supply, when a minister, his administration and his

deportment, if necessary, are open for debate. It seems, as I have

listened to debate today, that it may have been confused with the kind

of debate which is orderly in second reading.

I read from page 485 of Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition:

"Debate in second reading on the stages of a bill should be confined to

the bill and should not be extended to a criticism of administration."

That provides; then, for a second kind of debate: debate in principle

on a bill.

Then there is the third kind of debate, which is debate in

committee, when severe scrutiny can be given to a bill,

section by

section. Even in that debate a criticism of a person is not in order.

I would ask hon. members to reflect on that for a few moments

and

guide their debate in the light of the authorities.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I understand. This

is a particularly

peculiar bill in terms of what it sets out to do. It sets out to name

the minister's responsibilities. This is the Act setting up a

minister's total responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, that minister is the minister now carrying the

bill in

the House. That being the case, we have to ask ourselves a few

questions about him or other members of his party, dealing with Crown

land, dealing with other areas, and being given powers that make him

responsible to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in the direction of

the ministry, et cetera. We have to look at the person under this

circumstance and say to ourselves: "How does he fit the role?"

He is the person who is going to be carrying the

responsibility for

the next while. Just a few moments ago he got up in the House, and he

could have been reading an ad from the last campaign. That ad, Mr.

Speaker, lied. That ad said that the NDP doesn't believe in private

ownership of land. It was the most despicable kind of behaviour of any

political party that I can imagine. That minister, reading that kind of

material, makes that kind of suggestion in this House.

This is the kind of debate that puts one in a position where

one

can't help but lose one's temper. I suggest that this Mickey Mouse

portfolio, if it weren't for the fact that some of the areas were so

important, could be left alone. It could be said: "Well, I guess you

can take a portfolio like this, look around for a member that needs a

portfolio, because of his geographical location or something like that,

to keep that particular area in government, and place that member in

that position. "

There are aspects of this bill, potpourri that it is, that

should

certainly be in other areas of jurisdiction. The proposed Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing surprises all of us. He surprises us

particularly with the way that he introduced this bill. He came in and

indicated very clearly, having yielded to some relatively copious

notes, exactly what the bill sets out and so on in terms that one could

almost understand. Then one knows, in his heart of hearts, that when he

closes debate he's going to get up, knowing that he gets the last word,

and rip away again.

Mr. Speaker that's the kind of situation that gets us nowhere

absolutely nowhere at all. Let's take a look at some of the areas of

this bill.

In the first place, we're moving from the Municipal Affairs

ministry; we're moving some of those responsibilities to this new

ministry.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll order what you

deserve.

MR. COCKE: Order what? Would you like to

order something? All

you have to do is just send one of the Pages downstairs to the

restaurant.

The Attorney-General is a bit twitchy today. I don't blame

him. He

should tell his colleague, when he's sitting there, to think before he

talks. Making those kinds of irresponsible charges is just not good

enough for a minister of the Crown.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the minister is called upon to make a

yearly

report. We'I discuss that in committee. But we wonder whether or not

this minister will make the kind of yearly report that is going to

clearly enunciate what's been going on, if he takes

part in it. We

trust he won't have any

part in the preparation of that report so,

therefore, we can read it with a good deal of confidence.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why don't you read it? I

tabled it last week.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I know.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this particular

bill

leads us to believe that the government didn't quite know what to do

with parts and parcels of its responsibility, that they put them

together despite the fact that they don't really belong together. It

indicates to us there's a situation being developed for a particular

minister of the Crown for whom they could find nothing else to do. He's

tried many areas, failed in all and here we go again.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my

place rather

unexpectedly, but I cannot allow the member for New Westminster to get

away with a statement he made that his party is in favor of the private

ownership of land. There couldn't be anything further from the truth in

that respect, because occasionally they will obliquely deny the premise

but always, entirely, and without question, when it comes down to the

final word, they are socialists — and socialists are opposed to the

private ownership of land.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense, George. Tell the truth.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It made itself manifest in

many cases. It made

itself manifest in one little way during their regime of 1972 to 1975,

in which any person....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 712 ]

MR. COCKE: What happened?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Very simply, what happened

was that if a

senior citizen was unable to pay taxes.... They didn't worry about it.

Just sign the book, and when it's all over, the land will revert to the

Crown. That's a little way.

Now I'll tell you about a bigger way. What about the Waffle

Manifesto, which six ministers of the previous government were a party

to? The Leader of the Opposition was the leading name and he had the

effrontery to tell this House, and to tell others: "I put my name on

that manifesto so it could get on the floor."

May I ask him now: did it take six signatures to get on the

floor?

And I ask this question — that manifesto was clearly opposed to the

private ownership of land. Let us label them with that. Let them never

forget it. Let them understand that socialism is opposed to private

ownership of land. There's no other way it can be accepted; they can

deny it, but the facts speak for themselves. But let us go under our

true colours. Let them say: "Yes, we are opposed to it. But we're

opposed to it for such and such a reason." They would be more respected

for it. But to waffle around on the basis of, "Oh, no, we believe in

it," when they do not.... Because you cannot be a socialist and believe

in the private ownership of land.

MR. KING: I had not intended to enter this

debate, but when I

hear that kind of unacceptable and false claptrap being spewed forth in

this House, I can't let it go unchallenged.

Mr. Speaker, reference has been made once again to the Waffle

Manifesto. I want to tell the House, once and for all, if they are

prepared to listen, that particular manifesto was a resolution brought

to a national NDP convention, where it was roundly defeated, and the

sponsors of that resolution ultimately left our party.

Mr. Speaker, for the gentleman to put that forward as

representing

NDP policy is an insult to the truth. It's an insult to the truth, and

it would be just as appropriate for me to say that the resolution being

brought before, a provincial Social Credit convention by a group

advocating, of all things, circumcision for sexual offenders was indeed

Social Credit policy. That was a defeated resolution and it's about in

the same category that the member is trying to ascribe to our party and

our policy.

I want to say to those inarticulate Socreds over there that we

this side of the House have a proud history and tradition of respecting

and representing individual rights and freedoms in this nation; we have

a proud history of doing that. We have articulate spokesmen who can

explain our policies and our programs without, like people on that side

of the House in their most idiotic way, going around this province and

insulting the sensitivities of people by bringing forward that kind of

idiotic and poisonous nonsense. That's precisely what it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the debate on

ownership

undoubtedly is in order, but a full debate, I think, on the Waffle

Manifesto would not be in order under this bill.

MR. LAUK: Well, it might be a worthwhile to

debate that, Mr.

Speaker, but I appreciate your directions. I wonder if the hon.

minister subscribes to some of the views expressed in the resolutions

which from time to time over the past two or three decades appeared at

conventions of the Social Credit Party.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member,

this is exactly the

kind of debate we were trying to curtail to bring the debate back into

order under the bill.

MR. LAUK: I wasn't going to refer to

circumcision or any of

the other resolutions by BOLT or anything like that. Far be it from me

to stray from the principle of this bill to mention things like BOLT

and the various sections that have come before the Social Credit

convention.

What disappoints me about the member for Dewdney is a very

fundamental thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the bill also has

no reference to

the member for Dewdney. The principle of the bill, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, please be patient.

You see, I'm just a

time to formulate my thoughts. I'm struggling with every effort to

stick to the principle of this bill. It's not as easy for some of us to

(Hon. Mr. Williams). He can talk. I've heard him out in the corridor.

He talks and talks and talks, and the press go away shaking their

heads. They come back and ask the same question the next day, and he

talks and he talks and he talks, and the press go away again shaking

their heads. He's an amazing talker.

With respect to this bill and the comments made by the member

for

Dewdney on the private ownership of land, it's important that we

realize exactly where the Social Credit Party stands. The laws they

have passed with respect to land, with respect to taxation, have

favoured 50 or 60 wealthy families in this province. The laws they have

passed over the past three and a half or four years have favoured the

privileged few.

One of the great things they like to do during election

campaigns

and sometimes in this Legislature is to wave a red flag around. They

minister over there from Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland).... I

remember reading a letter from him where he called the NDP

"sociocommunists. " This pseudo-intellectual over there, who's only

real attribute is his receding hairline....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I don't think any of these

backbenchers can get a

subject and predicate within striking distance of one another.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I challenge you all to an IQ test

between each

other. Leave me out of it.

I'd like to point out that every once in a while, members like

the

member for Dewdney take great pleasure in standing up and

misrepresenting the facts. They love it. They know it's cheap politics;

they know it's good rhetoric; they know it's like fanning the flames of

fear. They tried it during the last election, and it didn't work. They

started

[ Page 713 ]

doing that. Their Premier got up and

called us

national socialists. The Minister of Forests called us

socio-communists. Somebody else called us godless Marxists, and so on.

The name-calling has gone on for 25 years in this province and it

hasn't stopped. But one thing has changed: it's not working any more.

The people are too smart for your kind of low-level, guttersnipe

politics; they're not buying it any more.

To the bill: I don't know why a gentleman of the stature and

personality of the member for Dewdney would stand up and dabble in that

kind of low-level politics. He's one of the politest people I have ever

met. After having met the hon. member for Dewdney, I often wondered why

he was so constantly polite; it's because it's absolutely free. The

member for Dewdney is a car dealer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

Please bring the

debate back into the scope of the bill.

MR. LAUK: He owns a lot of land, and one of

the reasons he is

able to do so, Mr. Speaker, is because he runs a car dealership. I

cannot think of anything more self-righteous than talking about the

private ownership of land and saying that this party is against it, and

his party is for it, in the face of the legislative program of this

bankrupt government which passes laws for a few families in this

province. Somebody should be ashamed. You people do not belong to those

40 or 50 families who control the wealth of this province. Yet you are

marching, like their soldiers, into this chamber — voting for them

every step of the way. The party of privilege, the party of wealth, the

party of the fat cats, Mr. Speaker; they have never thought about

passing a law for ordinary people. They have never thought about

protecting ordinary people, and they have the nerve to stand up in this

House and say that we're against the private ownership of land. We're

against the private ownership of land in the hands of 40 or 50

families, Mr. Speaker, but not in the hands of ordinary people. We did

more during our term of government for ordinary homeowners than any

other government in the history of this province.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs for the NDP administration,

and

other cabinet ministers, passed laws protecting ordinary working

families, enabling them to get housing. We were the first province in

Canada to set up a department of housing, Mr. Speaker. We set up a

department of housing to recognize the needs, not of those 40 or 50

wealthy families that now don't have to pay their estate taxes because

of this government of the rich, but for those hundreds and of thousands

of families that.... Oh, you think it's funny, Mr. Member for Kootenay

(Mr. Segarty). No, you haven't got a sore eye; but what's really sore

about you is about the same size as your eye — your brain. [Laughter.]

I'I tell you something, Mr. Speaker, it is no laughing matter

to me

that since 1975 that tremendous program of providing housing for

ordinary working people has been scuttled and ripped apart by that

government over there. They're against the private ownership of land,

they shout over to us. They are against the private ownership of land

for ordinary people. They want to hand it to the real estate

speculators. They want to pay off their campaign contributors. They

want to hand over Crown land to real estate speculators, and that is

what this proposal is all about. You watch them, Mr. Speaker; I charge

everybody to watch this government. They are not inclined toward

straightforward ways for the people of this province; it is foreign to

them. They are a government of privilege; they are a government that is

anti-democratic; they are a backroom government, a smoke filled room

government. They always pay off favours. They are for jobs for the

boys, the old-boy network; and the people of this province are sick to

death of them.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes

debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It has been a fairly

agitated debate, for

some unknown reason.

I want to make a few remarks. Nobody discussed, really, the

principle of the bill. All they did was heap abuse on my ministry and

the amalgamation of Lands, Parks and Housing. The member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) suggested it is a Mickey Mouse portfolio. If it

is a Mickey Mouse portfolio, I want to tell him what some of the things

a Mickey Mouse portfolio does. It provides grants and assistance for

the housing of seniors in British Columbia; it provides assistance for

housing for those of low income in British Columbia. If that is Mickey

Mouse, fine — I'll accept that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Less need? It's quite

obvious. You just look

at the surveys and find out the need for housing as it relates to last

year.

They suggest, Mr. Speaker, the administration of more than 14

million acres of parkland in this province is Mickey Mouse. I don't

agree with those people. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

says the ministry is a leftover. I suggest there is a close

relationship, a logical union, between Lands, Parks and Housing. Parks

has a very close relationship with land. In case you don't know it;

housing has a great association with land. In case you don't know it. I

think the union that has taken place between these three portions of

other ministries is a logical one, a reasonable one, and one which with

the close association will work.

The member for North Island, after getting up in a pompous and

pious

way, suggesting that he was very offended at statements that I had

made, went on to attack the minister and ridicule his ministry. That

was the substance of his response to second reading of this bill. It

was to belittle the minister, which is always a great game. You

belittle the minister and you become a great hero over in the NDP ranks.

But then he went on to say that they're going to oppose the

bill. I

want to tell you it's quite obvious to me he hasn't read the bill,

because the prime objective of making Crown land available in this

province is for making housing available to British Columbians so those

of low income can own. We're going to make land available at reasonable

terms, and it's going to be possible for an individual to acquire land

with 10 percent down. If that's want you want to oppose, Mr. Member,

you can go ahead and oppose it.

He suggests that making 800 acres available in the

northeastern

comer of the province will do nothing for assisting British Columbians

as far as housing is concerned.

[ Page 714 ]

I have never at any time suggested

there's going to

be 800 individual lots released in the Peace River part of the

province. I suggested that they're going to be released, made available

as soon as possible and scattered throughout British Columbia. We'I

move on from there as we're able to develop this land and make it

available to meet the needs of British Columbians for housing. We'll

press on with the job, and this bill makes it possible for us to do so.

The members across the way got very agitated this afternoon. I

was

rather surprised they would become so agitated about the statement that

I had made that they don't believe in the private ownership of land. I

said that's where our political differences are. We believe in the

private ownership of land and the socialists don't, Mr. Speaker.

Based on that, many of those members over there made some

outrageous

statements to camouflage some previous statements they had made. Those

statements weren't made at cocktail parties. They weren't made at

secret meetings, in telephone booths or in NDP caucuses. They were

public statements made by that band over there, Mr. Speaker.

I'I just make reference to some of these, Mr. Speaker. The

member

for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) had something to say in the Homemakers magazine

of May 19,

1974, page 12. The article, "Black and Female" by Carol Allen, quoted

Rosemary Brown as saying: "I don't believe in the private ownership of

land. It's a myth that we own everything." That's one of her statements.

There is also one of the former executive assistants. In

November

1973, an editorial in the Vancouver Province

called: "Questions

About Private Ownership" — I'm not going to read the full

article —

said: "Reports from Prince George that Agriculture minister Dave

Stupich's executive assistant was booed when he told an audience of

ranchers that no one should have the right to own land in British

Columbia demand some clarification." Clarification wasn't forthcoming.

Now they have the audacity to stand in here and suggest that they never

made any statement about the private ownership of land versus the state

ownership, which, they strongly support.

I would like to also quote another member of that illustrious

party,

the once-famous CCF and now the New Democratic Party, and their

attitude regarding land. On September 24, 1973, one of their members,

Gabelmann, spoke in the Legislature, this very chamber. He was sitting

in that corner down there on September 24, 1973, and had this to say. I

challenge you to deny this statement, like you're denying the

statements that I attributed to you. He said:

"Maybe the government has got to be

involved in

building homes. Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned

privately. No one ever suggested air should be owned privately. Air was

given to us by God or whoever we believe gave it to us and so was land.

It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that

is natural should be privately owned."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

Let's have one

person speaking at a time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll repeat that statement.

"It is foreign to my philosophy that land

or anything

on this earth that is natural should be privately owned. I believe it

is going to take us decades and decades to reverse that mentality and

that attitude in this society. And I have it too, that we all think we

have to own a chunk of land. Until we own that chunk of land and until

we own a house we've actually not made it. We have got to reverse that

philosophy."

That's not me speaking; that's the member for North Island in

"I'm not suggesting this government will

have the time

to be able to do that; I think it's a thing that has to happen

throughout North America over a great many years. But I think that it's

important that people begin to talk about the fact that there is no

real difference between land and air, and we think it absurd and insane

if air were owned privately. I think it's the same situation with land."

Mr. Speaker, I challenge you to challenge that statement made

by one

of their members — the member for North Island. That's his philosophy,

and that's the philosophy of that party. You can try to deny it as long

as you want, but the truth will find you out.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Rogers

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 22

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Lorimer

Howard

Levi

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Gablemann

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Skelly

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

Bill 17, Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, read a

second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 18, Mr.

Speaker.

EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

section 1.

MR. LAUK: When there is debate in second

reading, Mr.

Chairman, as always, this little opposition is greatly

[ Page 715 ]

outnumbered by that steamroller

government. The

minister opens debate and closes debate. He made a couple of

misstatements, inadvertently, of course, because we all know his

expertise is the sexing of whales and has little to do with the reading

of statutes. But he suggested that

section 1 was not as I said it could

be interpreted. He suggested it was impossible to use the amendment to

the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act to

guarantee the indebtedness of independent schools; it's prevented by

regulation, he says. Well, I wish he would clear the formaldehyde from

his inner ears and listen more carefully to opposition arguments,

because we're not raising them to hear ourselves talk. We're trying to

prevent you from committing further blunders at the taxpayers' expense.

That's our job: to make sure your sloppy draftsmanship isn't repeated

so often that the Minister of Finance goes broke paying for it.

The amendments are clear. The amendment to the capital

financing, et

cetera, Act is clear. It says it will add the phrase "or a designated

educational institution to the authority" after "authority" in

section

8(l). Well, let's go to the statute, and we'll read it.

Section 8(l), Mr. Chairman, as you well know, says: "The Crown

may,

on such terms as the Lieutenant Governor-in- Council approves,

guarantee (

a) the payment of principle and interest, and (

b) the

performance of any obligation for the payment of money, of the notes,

bonds, debentures and other securities issued by the authority."

The amendment would add: "or a designated educational

institution to

the authority."

Now in subsection (3) it adds: "or a designated educational

institution" after "authority."

In subsection (3) of the same Act: "The guarantee, in such

form and

manner as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council approves, may be endorsed

on the notes, bonds," et cetera, et cetera, "and the signature of a

person authorized to sign the guarantee may be produced," et cetera.

This means that any designated educational institution will have the

right to a government guarantee by order-in-council. We said this. He

said it was against the regulations. Well, a cabinet can change the

regulations; you don't need to come back to the Legislature.

My argument was: you don't go sneaking this past the

Legislature and

say: "Oh, well, we'll take care of it in cabinet. We've got you

protected. Don't worry about it." I may believe the minister, because

he's an honourable gentleman. But I don't know how long he's going to

be in that present post. Rumour has it that he's going to be moving

closer down this aisle fairly soon. And before he reaches that mid-life

crisis, I want to bring to his attention that another Minister of

Education may be in his chair — you know that — who may not be an

honourable gentleman, and who may without further consultation with the

Legislature pass an order-in-council enabling the capital financing or

the guarantee of indebtedness to independent schools by cabinet order.

I refer again to that

section which says: "...may guarantee

the

performance of any obligation for the payment of money by the authority

or by an educational institution designated by the regulations as an

institution." The only reference in the Act about regulations

designating educational institutions is tautological. It says: "Without

restricting the generality of subsection (1), the regulations may

designate educational institutions as institutions to which this Act

may apply." In other words, the government can say what is a designated

institution — period! There's nothing to restrict the government from

saying that St. George's or some senior secondary or some

post-secondary private institution like Trinity, or something like

that, can be designated under this statute and be entitled therefore by

the decision of the cabinet to have their entire capital cost

indebtedness guaranteed by the public purse.

Is the minister listening? The minister's back is turned

around. I'm

not sure that he can hear. His ears are pointing towards the wall. I'm

not sure the sound waves.... Oh, there he is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the

member will relate

this to the section.

MR. LAUK: I think that

section 1 certainly

can be read in

that way. I have spoken to various officials in the civil service who

agree that it can be read in that way, and that such an open

interpretation should be protected. Under

section 1, will the minister

indicate to the committee whether it's the government's policy to

guarantee capital indebtedness of private schools?

Secondly, if it is not the government's policy, does he

propose to

withdraw

section 1 and revise it to prevent the possibility from

occurring?

HON. MR. McGEER: To both questions, the

answer is no. I know

it's a burden on the member to attend the House, particularly after he

has given a speech. Presumably he needs to go out and give it again in

the corridor. If he had been here when we were discussing this bill

originally, he would have had the explanation he required. I suppose we

are obliged to repeat the arguments to satisfy the member now that he

deigns to attend the House.

The matter that the member is concerned about, of course, is

one

which exists irrespective of this particular amendment. All the

amendment does is to permit the authorities designated under the Act —

they are public post-secondary institutions, for whom the Act was

created and which are specified in the regulations which exist.

I explained to the members of the House, as I explain now,

that this

Act was introduced in 1976, prior to the time when the Colleges and

Provincial Institutes Act was introduced. where we had to create a

vehicle for capital borrowing for those new post-secondary public

institutions which have been created since that time.

The member is obviously against those new institutes which

were

created. The member is against the Educational Institutions Capital

Financing Authority being used....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must remind

the minister we

are in committee stage. If the minister expands the scope of debate,

the Chair will have no....

HON. MR. McGEER: But he has asked, Mr.

Chairman, for me to

withdraw this particular section. To withdraw the

section would prevent

our public post-secondary institutions from borrowing. That's the whole

problem.

Mr. Chairman, we don't need to rewrite the section. It

explains very

clearly what the intent is. The regulations very clearly rule out

independent schools, We have explained that the policy of the

government in the past has

[ Page 716 ]

been not to fund the capital of

independent

schools. It is not the policy now; it will not be the policy in the

future.

I just wish that the members could have delivered their

opinions on

independent schools and voted one way or another on that particular

bill on second reading, instead of still bringing it into every single

educational amendment or bill that is introduced in the House and

debating endlessly something which required debate on one occasion when

this party turned tail and ran from the House.

I know they're trying to redeem themselves for that

irresponsible

and uncalled-for and shameful act of responsibility in the House but it

cannot be done by attempting to punish our public institutions. This

amendment is very clearly worded. Its intent is most worthy. It

requires no amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that this

section pass.

MR. LAUK: I would prefer that the minister

were less moved by

the emotion of his debate and would look carefully at what I am saying.

He says it's in the regulations. For the benefit of some of the new

members — particularly the lawyers who won't know this — regulations

are not passed in this chamber. Isn't that right, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please don't look to the

Chair for guidance.

MR. LAUK: Even people from Ottawa know

that. It should be

generally understood: regulations are in the form of orders-in-council.

Now the press gallery, who are there in thunderous array, and

who

you can all see there, know that they have no access to the cabinet

room when these regulations are passed. Okay? That's what I said. I

said that if you're going to make amendments to the B.C. Educational

Institutions Capital Financing Authority Amendment Act, you do it in

this chamber, not in a smoke-filled room with the doors closed and the

greenies outside protecting the press gallery or preventing the press

gallery or Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition from hearing the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I'm relieved that it's only taken three days for

the

minister to stand up and say it. All it took him was three days of

questioning to stand up and say it is not the policy of the government

to guarantee the indebtedness of independent schools through this

statute. I am relieved to hear the minister say that. However, the

amendments that are proposed in

section 1 will enable him or any other

minister to do it. So what I am suggesting to you is that you change

the wording of your amendment — not withdraw it, because heaven knows

we created these colleges and institutions. We're not opposed to them.

The NDP administration created them after 20 years of neglect by the

Social Credit government that turned their back on post-secondary

education. They turned their back.

You know how I know they turned their back on education for 20

years? Because I was reading the Minister of Education's speeches in

those days. His speeches, Mr. Chairman, were made in those lean years

for education when the present, current and not-so-long-lasting

Minister of Education was a member of the Liberal Party.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Who was a member of the

Liberal Party?

MR. LAUK: The present, current and

not-so-long lasting

Minister of Education.

AN. HON. MEMBER: He was the leader of the

Liberal Party.

MR. LAUK: That's correct. This was eons ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you could relate this

section 1,

hon. members.

MR. LAUK: Eons ago, Mr. Chairman, at a time

even the minister

wishes were prehistoric.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on

section 1 of this

bill, hon. member. Perhaps you could relate this to the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Freedom of Education League.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

appreciate your help in

giving my speech.

The Minister of Education refuses, stubbornly, to accept the

logical

and legal

interpretation of these proposed amendments. Let's say that

it's not the independent schools that will get capital finance. Because

under the legislation that I've read to you.... I'I read it again.

Maybe the member for Prince George, who has had a great number of years

in legal practice, can assist the minister. Can you come over and sit

beside him and read the Act to him and explain what the words mean?

Because it says: "...authority means the corporation established under

section 2: designated educational institution means (

i) a university

operating under the Universities Act" — no problem; " (ii) the British

Columbia Institute of Technology" — salutary. Then: "(iii) an

educational institution designated by the regulations as an institution

to which this Act applies."

Section 11: "Without restricting the

generality of subsection (1) the regulations may (

a) designate

educational institutions as institutions to which this Act applies."

Section I says: "...the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make

regulations...."

All right, I've told you what regulations are. Now guess what

the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is. It's not the Legislature, is it? You

know that, Mr. Member. You've been here before, haven't you. You know

that. It's the cabinet. The public does not have access to the cabinet.

They make these decisions.

So as we pass this section, the cabinet can meet, repeal the

regulations which prohibit guaranteeing indebtedness to other than

post-secondary public institutions, and pass another order-in-council

guaranteeing — let's say designating — as an educational institution

the local Social Credit "Freedom of Information League." Let's say they

did that. They wouldn't get much public support for it, but let's say

they did — as an educational institution designated by regulation. So

they designate as an educational institution the Social Credit "Freedom

of Information League."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: They'd change the name,

certainly. Then they'd

immediately build a 50-storey tower in downtown Vancouver, and the

capital financing would be guaranteed under this statute by the cabinet.

[ Page 717 ]

The minister is really saying that age-old thing that was made

famous by Richard Milhouse Nixon: "Trust Me. You don't need to debate

anything in the Legislature involving the taxpayers' money; we can do

it behind closed doors much better than you can anyway."

We're opposed to

section 1, Mr. Chairman, and I think that the

minister should come clean with the public. Stop pretending. This

amendment is important. You should rephrase it. You've stated that your

policy was not to provide capital financing guarantees for independent

schools. Come clean.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before recognizing the

minister, perhaps I

could take a moment of the committee's time to read from Sir Erskine

May, where it deals with allegations against members. Although this has

been canvassed before, I shall read it again. "Good temper and

moderation are characteristics of parliamentary language, and

parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is

canvassing the opinions or the conduct of his opponents in debate."

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, thank you

for that reminder. I

might say that you, sir, have been very indulgent in entertaining the

debate and points raised by my good friend opposite, because during the

entire debate — and I suppose it is not uncharacteristic — he has been

out of order. The complaint which he raises, one that is not a valid

complaint — but given his determination to deal with it — has its

redress not in this section, which amends

section 8 of the Act, but in

a bill we passed in 1976,

section 1. Therefore if the member feels very

strongly about the regulations, he could address his attention to

section 1 of the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital

Financing Authority Act. If he reads

section 1 of that Act, then that

is the

section to which he has addressed his debate. But this bill, Mr.

Chairman,

section 1, does not amend

section 1 of that Act. It amends an

entirely different

section —

section 8. So his debate has been

completely irrelevant to this section.

It is not the first time the member has been irrelevant, and

I'm

certain it's not the last. If the member wishes, he's quite free to

introduce his own legislation dealing with

section 1 of that Act. But,

Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will not entertain any further debate on

section 1 of another bill, but only entertain debate relevant to

section 1 of this bill, which deals with an amendment to

section 8 of

the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing

Authority Act.

I want to assure the members for the umpteenth time with

respect to

the policy on capital financing of independent schools. It has not been

the policy of the government in the past; it is not the policy now, nor

will it be the policy in the future. Mr. Chairman, had the member

attended the House for just a few minutes two years ago when this bill

was debated, or when the independent schools Act was debated in second

reading, he would have grasped that policy because it was clearly

stated at that time. Of course the NDP ran from the House on that

occasion, and so they missed what was being said. They only would have

learned by reading Hansard , again an exercise

which, I presume,

is rarely indulged in by that member. I can only say, Mr. Chairman,

that had he bothered to attend the House when this bill was debated in

second reading after he himself had delivered his own address, he would

have had an answer to that question. But no, Mr. Chairman, we're doomed

to come in here and repeat it again and again and again for that

particular member who has such difficulty grasping simple principles

and simple policy.

His memory, of course, is short. He has difficulty recalling

that

during the election campaign he wrote a letter, which was widely

distributed, guaranteeing support of independent schools. Indeed he

came into the House and suggested that Gary Lauk had not written such a

letter. Well, we had a letter from Gary Lauk which we attempted to

table in the House to refresh his memory, but his colleagues opposite,

are't willing to have that kind of evidence presented to the House.

MR. LAUK: Table it now.

HON. MR. McGEER: Presumably they refreshed

the member's

memory after the House adjourned. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think

we're filling any useful purpose repeating this for the benefit of the

member. I can only urge his colleagues to help him out in this respect.

MR. LAUK: We have a lot of good fun, we

exchange

pleasantries, but I'm becoming very, very concerned. I don't think the

minister knows what I'm saying, and I am serious about the

interpretation of these sections. There is a serious problem the

minister has missed — and I think that perhaps legislative counsel will

be able to help. If you want to recess or something. I'm quite serious

when I say that the minister, by his remarks, does not understand the

point I'm making.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point has been very well

canvassed, hon.

member.

MR. LAUK: Isn't that astounding! It seems

the minister

himself has escaped the effects of the core curriculum, because the

amendments are clear. Yes, it is to

section 8, and I read

section 8.

What the amendment to

section 8 says is that the government will now be

allowed not only to guarantee the indebtedness of authorities — and

those have been described — but also to guarantee the indebtedness of

designated educational institutions. I only turned to

section 1 to find

out what a "designated education institution" is — that's not

irrelevant to this debate — and I found out that it is any educational

institution designated as such by the cabinet. Is it not fair to look

at that

section and find out what happens? Can the minister do that

then? Can he go from

section 8, read it and go back to

section 1, read

that and then tell me what prevents the government from providing a

guarantee of indebtedness for private institutions, other then those in

the public education system? None, absolutely none.

I believe the minister when he says that it's not his policy

now and

it wasn't the policy in the past. But he cannot guarantee what the

policy will be in the future. He has not got that power under the

constitution. We cannot bind subsequent parliaments, and we cannot bind

any government to policy other than by public opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dianne Hartwick.

[ Page 718 ]

MR. LAUK: Yes, the second member for Point

Grey might indeed

have been Dianne Hartwick. There are some who speculate that she would

make an excellent Minister of Education. But I'm not one of those who

wish to speculate, and I don't think any of us should speculate about

how this new amendment will be applied by any cabinet. It should be

brought before the Legislature. Will the minister redraft this

section

before he creates a large loophole through which you can drive

a...whatever?

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. LAUK: We did canvass this in second

reading, and I'm not

going to get involved with the committee again. They seem intent on

pressing on with this ill-advised section, which will enable

independent schools to traffic in provincial government grants or the

right to them. Again, this is a heavy responsibility. These Acts can be

drafted in straightforward ways to prevent the trafficking in

accreditation; but the minister — who seems to be unusually arrogant

these days; it must be because we're sitting over the summer — will not

listen to reason. Surely he doesn't want the accreditation described in

the Independent Schools Support Act to take on its own economic value,

to be traded like a taxi licence or a fishing boat licence. Is that

what he wants? Because that's what he's creating. He can avoid that.

I'm not going to raise the argument that we'd better watch out because

the Moonies are going to buy St. George's. From what I hear, that would

be an improvement.

In all seriousness why invite trouble? Why not draft your

amendments

so that they reflect a concern for the sort of situation that arose at

the Marian high school in Vancouver. I understand that the Sisters at

the Marian high school wanted to give up their ownership of the school

as an authority, and that the new authority — already an authority, by

the way, under the Independent Schools Support Act — take on their

responsibilities. That's the sort of situation you are trying to cover.

A much more simple way to do it, for heaven's sake.... Haven't you got

anybody to advise you on how to draft an amendment over there? This

sloppiness can't continue. You have a heavy responsibility when you

make amendments to the Public Schools Act. You only open it up every

once in a while — and these other Acts. Anyway, obviously you're not

listening. You're just a member of an arrogant, steamroller government

that steps on the toes of ordinary people and certainly ignores the

legitimate contributions made by this little opposition.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if the minister could

explain why this

amendment was brought in.

HON. MR. McGEER: The principal reason,

Madam Member, is to

eliminate doubt, from the legal point of view, as to precisely what the

number would be. Some of these figures are occasionally subject to